Why bring race into this? Speaking of being arrogant and insensitive, Hyde steps into it for the sake of a controversial article.

Quote:

There’s arrogant. There's insensitive. And then there’s the question Jeff Ireland asked in a pre-draft interview with receiver Dez Bryant.

On what planet is it acceptable for someone in a position of authority to ask a kid if his mother was a prostitute?

Don’t talk about the queston’s context, a team’s need for answers or the uncertainty about Bryant’s upbringing. No boss in any business needs to ask that question. That’s just common sense. It’s Humanity 101.

Here’s what you do ask today: What’s the desperate need for that specific answer? Does Ireland feel entitled to ask any question of a player because he’s a NFL general manager?

And: Would Ireland have asked a white receiver that same question?

Yes, of course, that’s an issue to consider. It's a question and situation tinged with stereotypical prejudice.

He pulled the race card because thats what the media always does when there is a African-American involved in controversy. Notice Dez didn't bring up the race issue (at least not to this point he hasnt). Sad, the very thing they are claiming (racism) is exactly what they are guilty of themselves.

He pulled the race card because thats what the media always does when there is a African-American involved in controversy. Notice Dez didn't bring up the race issue (at least not to this point he hasnt). Sad, the very thing they are claiming (racism) is exactly what they are guilty of themselves.

Yet the media doesn't latch on to the Toby Gerhart questioning.

Quote:

“One team I interviewed with asked me about being a white running back,” Gerhart says. “They asked if it made me feel entitled, or like I felt I was a poster child for white running backs. I said, ‘No, I’m just out there playing ball. I don’t think about that.’ I didn’t really know what to say.”

He pulled the race card because thats what the media always does when there is a African-American involved in controversy. Notice Dez didn't bring up the race issue (at least not to this point he hasnt). Sad, the very thing they are claiming (racism) is exactly what they are guilty of themselves.

Yet the media doesn't latch on to the Toby Gerhart questioning.

Quote:

“One team I interviewed with asked me about being a white running back,” Gerhart says. “They asked if it made me feel entitled, or like I felt I was a poster child for white running backs. I said, ‘No, I’m just out there playing ball. I don’t think about that.’ I didn’t really know what to say.”

Gona be a sad day if this team leaves south Florida... Heat cant win a playoff series, Marlins and panthers are doomed and the only hope is the Fins, who have been getting hammered in the media all off season... He!! even the Canes have been muffled...

Sad... This regime has a no talk policy to help them succeed in football and these beat writer clowns take it personal cause they cant get the scoop...

They are all hoping Ireland and Parcels leave soon so they can get the scoop....

Maybe he asked her if she was a prostitute because she use to be a prostitute, not because she is black. Its history not race that was the purpose of this question, next thing you know they are going to be saying its racist to ask ricky williams if he still smokes pot, ITS CAUSE HE USE TO!!! ugh over this If Ireland gets canned I may switch to a team with some balls to defend their assets

Gona be a sad day if this team leaves south Florida... Heat cant win a playoff series, Marlins and panthers are doomed and the only hope is the Fins, who have been getting hammered in the media all off season

The Heat will be a serious contender next year, we will have enough cap space to sign some big names and Riley has already promised big things. The Marlins are looking up as well, signing their players this year rather than letting them go. We signed Hanley and JJ to long term deals, and we have a beautiful stadium opening in 2012. The phins brought in Parcells, went from 1-15 to 11-5 and then had a season set back by injuries. The sports scene in south Florida is on the rise, and has a bright future. The problem down here is our fans, we have too many transplants and too many people who simply don't care about sports.

He pulled the race card because thats what the media always does when there is a African-American involved in controversy. Notice Dez didn't bring up the race issue (at least not to this point he hasnt). Sad, the very thing they are claiming (racism) is exactly what they are guilty of themselves.

Yet the media doesn't latch on to the Toby Gerhart questioning.

Quote:

“One team I interviewed with asked me about being a white running back,” Gerhart says. “They asked if it made me feel entitled, or like I felt I was a poster child for white running backs. I said, ‘No, I’m just out there playing ball. I don’t think about that.’ I didn’t really know what to say.”

Great point. Obviously Toby's question wasn't as inflamatory as the one Ireland asked, but it's pretty inane as well. I agree with the thread's opinion on Hyde. He's never been good, now he's just desperate.

Bringing up the question of race shouldn't automatically get dismissed with the "race card" label. Race is a serious issue that plays a role in society whether people want to admit it or not, and while I understand that sometimes it isn't backed up well, like in this article, it's still an important issue that shouldn't be reduced to something trivial like "the race card".

The way Hyde wrote it was cheap and obviously for shock value, but that doesn't mean that race doesn't play an issue when it comes to player-personnel relations in the NFL.

Using the term "race card" implies that anyone whp talks about race is trying to hide behind it for personal gain, and while this may be true of some people, it certainly is not true of many people who have tried to bring up race in a serious discussion, yet get accused of pulling the dreaded "race card". Automatically pulling out this "race card" intimidates people from talking about issues that are real.

Not defending Hyde or saying that Ireland was racist. Trust me, I understand that article was arbitrary and written only for reader shock-value, just think it's unhealthy when our gut reaction is to deem everything that deals with race as the "race card".

Bringing up the question of race shouldn't automatically get dismissed with the "race card" label. Race is a serious issue that plays a role in society whether people want to admit it or not, and while I understand that sometimes it isn't backed up well, like in this article, it's still an important issue that shouldn't be reduced to something trivial like "the race card".

The way Hyde wrote it was cheap and obviously for shock value, but that doesn't mean that race doesn't play an issue when it comes to player-personnel relations in the NFL.

Using the term "race card" implies that anyone whp talks about race is trying to hide behind it for personal gain, and while this may be true of some people, it certainly is not true of many people who have tried to bring up race in a serious discussion, yet get accused of pulling the dreaded "race card". Automatically pulling out this "race card" intimidates people from talking about issues that are real.

Not defending Hyde or saying that Ireland was racist. Trust me, I understand that article was arbitrary and written only for reader shock-value, just think it's unhealthy when our gut reaction is to deem everything that deals with race as the "race card".

So let me get this straight. You say that Hyde misused race as a motivation here for what happened, but your chastising people for using the term 'race card', even though it was appropriately used this time? Honestly if you had a point in your long soap box sermon, you lost me on it.

I want to know why race can be brought up here as a motive when the question was about his mother being a prostitute, but it's not an issue when race was specifically used in a line of questioning about a white man? That's called reverse racism and it happens and is ignored all too often. If we are going to have a society free form racism, we need first to get rid of the idea that it only pertains to one race.

Last edited by Phin on Thu Apr 29, 2010 9:29 am, edited 2 times in total.

Bringing up the question of race shouldn't automatically get dismissed with the "race card" label. Race is a serious issue that plays a role in society whether people want to admit it or not, and while I understand that sometimes it isn't backed up well, like in this article, it's still an important issue that shouldn't be reduced to something trivial like "the race card".

The way Hyde wrote it was cheap and obviously for shock value, but that doesn't mean that race doesn't play an issue when it comes to player-personnel relations in the NFL.

Using the term "race card" implies that anyone whp talks about race is trying to hide behind it for personal gain, and while this may be true of some people, it certainly is not true of many people who have tried to bring up race in a serious discussion, yet get accused of pulling the dreaded "race card". Automatically pulling out this "race card" intimidates people from talking about issues that are real.

Not defending Hyde or saying that Ireland was racist. Trust me, I understand that article was arbitrary and written only for reader shock-value, just think it's unhealthy when our gut reaction is to deem everything that deals with race as the "race card".

So let me get this straight. You say that Hyde misused race as a motivation here for what happened, but your chastising people for using the term 'race card', even though it was appropriately used this time? Honestly if you had a point in your long soap box sermon, you lost me on it.

I want to know why race can be brought up here as a motive when the question was about his mother being a prostitute, but it's not an issue when race was specifically used in a line of questioning about a white man? That's called reverse racism and it happens and is ignored all to often. If we are going to have a society free form racism, we need first to get rid of the idea that it only pertains to one race.

Let's get one thing straight. There is no such thing as reverse racism; there is only racism. Reverse racism denotes that only whites can be "real" racists and that anyone who is not white is merely reacting to "real" racism.

A spade is a spade.

_________________A good RB is nice, a good QB even better, but it's best to be able to stop someone first.

Bringing up the question of race shouldn't automatically get dismissed with the "race card" label. Race is a serious issue that plays a role in society whether people want to admit it or not, and while I understand that sometimes it isn't backed up well, like in this article, it's still an important issue that shouldn't be reduced to something trivial like "the race card".

The way Hyde wrote it was cheap and obviously for shock value, but that doesn't mean that race doesn't play an issue when it comes to player-personnel relations in the NFL.

Using the term "race card" implies that anyone whp talks about race is trying to hide behind it for personal gain, and while this may be true of some people, it certainly is not true of many people who have tried to bring up race in a serious discussion, yet get accused of pulling the dreaded "race card". Automatically pulling out this "race card" intimidates people from talking about issues that are real.

Not defending Hyde or saying that Ireland was racist. Trust me, I understand that article was arbitrary and written only for reader shock-value, just think it's unhealthy when our gut reaction is to deem everything that deals with race as the "race card".

So let me get this straight. You say that Hyde misused race as a motivation here for what happened, but your chastising people for using the term 'race card', even though it was appropriately used this time? Honestly if you had a point in your long soap box sermon, you lost me on it.

I want to know why race can be brought up here as a motive when the question was about his mother being a prostitute, but it's not an issue when race was specifically used in a line of questioning about a white man? That's called reverse racism and it happens and is ignored all to often. If we are going to have a society free form racism, we need first to get rid of the idea that it only pertains to one race.

Let's get one thing straight. There is no such thing as reverse racism; there is only racism. Reverse racism denotes that only whites can be "real" racists and that anyone who is not white is merely reacting to "real" racism.

A spade is a spade.

I agree, but in my defense, I was trying to use vernacular familiar to most people. I think the point of my tirade was exactly what your saying. Racism is racism.

NFLPA executive director DeMaurice Smith said Wednesday the treatment of Dallas Cowboys first-round pick Dez Bryant and other prospective draft picks needs to be conducted in a professional manner.

Smith was reacting to Bryant being asked if his mother was a prostitute by Dolphins general manager Jeff Ireland during a predraft visit in March.

Ireland apologized to Bryant on Tuesday after a Yahoo! Sports report said Ireland asked the question.

Dolphins owner Stephen Ross said Wednesday that he will look into Ireland's interview conduct.

"Jeff Ireland has already apologized for questions asked of former Oklahoma State receiver Dez Bryant," Ross said in a statement. "I will be looking into this matter personally and will take appropriate actions if necessary."

Bill Parcells, a former Cowboys coach, who is now an executive with the Dolphins was unavailable for comment. Parcells hired Ireland.

"We need to make sure the men of this league are treated as businessmen," Smith said in a statement. "During interviews, our players and prospective players should never be subjected to discrimination or degradation stemming from the biases or misconceptions held by team personnel. NFL teams cannot have the free reign to ask questions during the interview process which can be categorized as stereotyping or which may bring a personal insult to any player as a man."

Interesting that the NFLPA weighs in on the Bryant issue and it makes headline news with ESPN, but I have heard nothing about whether or not the NFLPA is condemning overtly racist questions leveled at Gerhardt in his interview.

Bringing up the question of race shouldn't automatically get dismissed with the "race card" label. Race is a serious issue that plays a role in society whether people want to admit it or not, and while I understand that sometimes it isn't backed up well, like in this article, it's still an important issue that shouldn't be reduced to something trivial like "the race card".

The way Hyde wrote it was cheap and obviously for shock value, but that doesn't mean that race doesn't play an issue when it comes to player-personnel relations in the NFL.

Using the term "race card" implies that anyone whp talks about race is trying to hide behind it for personal gain, and while this may be true of some people, it certainly is not true of many people who have tried to bring up race in a serious discussion, yet get accused of pulling the dreaded "race card". Automatically pulling out this "race card" intimidates people from talking about issues that are real.

Not defending Hyde or saying that Ireland was racist. Trust me, I understand that article was arbitrary and written only for reader shock-value, just think it's unhealthy when our gut reaction is to deem everything that deals with race as the "race card".

So let me get this straight. You say that Hyde misused race as a motivation here for what happened, but your chastising people for using the term 'race card', even though it was appropriately used this time? Honestly if you had a point in your long soap box sermon, you lost me on it.

I want to know why race can be brought up here as a motive when the question was about his mother being a prostitute, but it's not an issue when race was specifically used in a line of questioning about a white man? That's called reverse racism and it happens and is ignored all too often. If we are going to have a society free form racism, we need first to get rid of the idea that it only pertains to one race.

I'm just posting like everyone else. No need to belittle my post by calling it a soap box. And yes, I agree Hyde threw the issue of race out there without evidence, and that a serious discussion of race as a motivating factor in Ireland's comments would have required a better article than the one he wrote. And I'm not saying that it shouldn't be brought up on the question of Toby Gerhart (sp?).

What I'm saying it is the "race card" label carries with it certain implications that I disagree with. Number one being the claim that our country is suffering from the race card. That, to me, is a complete exaggeration. Also, the race card stamp intimidates people from talking about race and it goes along with the false premise that we do/should live in a "color blind" society where race isnt a motivating factor for things. That's a dishonest approach to issues of race. If you want to argue against Hyde's premise, then you can do that without using a term that labels everything dealing with race as irrelevant.

More emphasis is placed on racism towards minorities because while everyone is capable of prejudice, not everyone has the power to discriminate. And while not always the case, history and present day situations show that the racism is truly debilitating when the one acting on it also has the POWER to discriminate. In this sense, racism has had a more negative effect on minorities in this country, thus making it a more sensitive issue in the eyes of the media. Not because they care, but because they know it's what will get the ratings.

Again, not defending Hyde, not blasting Ireland for being racist..just noticing an unreasonable amount of animosity at the hint of race being a topic of conversation for many issues we deal with.

The fact that I have some thoughtful and challenging things to say about race generates this response. rather than try to answer my post honestly, I'm trivialized and my argument is made into a caricature. In this case, a silly, irrelevant caricature. Thank you for illustrating my point so well.

I agree Hyde threw the issue of race out there without evidence, and that a serious discussion of race as a motivating factor in Ireland's comments would have required a better article than the one he wrote. And I'm not saying that it shouldn't be brought up on the question of Toby Gerhart (sp?).

What I'm saying it is the "race card" label carries with it certain implications that I disagree with. Number one being the claim that our country is suffering from the race card. That, to me, is a complete exaggeration. Also, the race card stamp intimidates people from talking about race and it goes along with the false premise that we do/should live in a "color blind" society where race isnt a motivating factor for things. That's a dishonest approach to issues of race. If you want to argue against Hyde's premise, then you can do that without using a term that labels everything dealing with race as irrelevant.

More emphasis is placed on racism towards minorities because while everyone is capable of prejudice, not everyone has the power to discriminate. And while not always the case, history and present day situations show that the racism is truly debilitating when the one acting on it also has the POWER to discriminate. In this sense, racism has had a more negative effect on minorities in this country, thus making it a more sensitive issue in the eyes of the media. Not because they care, but because they know it's what will get the ratings.

Again, not defending Hyde, not blasting Ireland for being racist..just noticing an unreasonable amount of animosity at the hint of race being a topic of conversation for many issues we deal with.

You bring up a good point about discrimination, but the fact remains that when the issue of 'racism' is brought up, the subject belongs to everyone, not just one race. As for discrimination, the status quo is being changed daily. The White middle class is shrinking and there are now many minorities who have power and wealth. Oh yes, discrimination is still very real, but it doesn't just belong to white people anymore. As for the term 'race card', if the shoe fits, wear it. Race card is a term that is used when someone brings up the issue of race when it doesn't belong. Hyde did exactly that, so he gets the 'race card' term leveled at him fairly. Had he brought it up with some sort of foundation, then it wouldn't apply. Same can be said of disagreeing with our president. Just because I disagree with him on social spending policies, doesn't mean that I have a problem with his race. When someone spouts off that people who disagree with the president are racists, they are using the 'race card'. Your effectively holding up a card that says no further real discussion can take place here because I have unfairly attributed racism to this discussion. As previously said, anyone disagreeing is now demonized as a racist and all serious discussion is now off the table. Sadly those who cry wolf know exactly what they are doing, shutting down good dialogue and demonizing the opposition. Hence the term 'race card'.

The fact that I have some thoughtful and challenging things to say about race generates this response. rather than try to answer my post honestly, I'm trivialized and my argument is made into a caricature. In this case, a silly, irrelevant caricature. Thank you for illustrating my point so well.

You've made no point. You're REEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAACHING. You're apparently one of these crusaders marching to the beat of anything anyone labels as racist.

I wonder what the connection is with crack users to prostitution???? Hmmmmm I wonder how far fetched it would be that someone who used crack, could ever have prostituted themselves? I wonder if a child growing up around a person like that could ever be mentally "afllicted"?? Hmmmmm

I agree Hyde threw the issue of race out there without evidence, and that a serious discussion of race as a motivating factor in Ireland's comments would have required a better article than the one he wrote. And I'm not saying that it shouldn't be brought up on the question of Toby Gerhart (sp?).

What I'm saying it is the "race card" label carries with it certain implications that I disagree with. Number one being the claim that our country is suffering from the race card. That, to me, is a complete exaggeration. Also, the race card stamp intimidates people from talking about race and it goes along with the false premise that we do/should live in a "color blind" society where race isnt a motivating factor for things. That's a dishonest approach to issues of race. If you want to argue against Hyde's premise, then you can do that without using a term that labels everything dealing with race as irrelevant.

More emphasis is placed on racism towards minorities because while everyone is capable of prejudice, not everyone has the power to discriminate. And while not always the case, history and present day situations show that the racism is truly debilitating when the one acting on it also has the POWER to discriminate. In this sense, racism has had a more negative effect on minorities in this country, thus making it a more sensitive issue in the eyes of the media. Not because they care, but because they know it's what will get the ratings.

Again, not defending Hyde, not blasting Ireland for being racist..just noticing an unreasonable amount of animosity at the hint of race being a topic of conversation for many issues we deal with.

You bring up a good point about discrimination, but the fact remains that when the issue of 'racism' is brought up, the subject belongs to everyone, not just one race. As for discrimination, the status quo is being changed daily. The White middle class is shrinking and there are now many minorities who have power and wealth. Oh yes, discrimination is still very real, but it doesn't just belong to white people anymore. As for the term 'race card', if the shoe fits, wear it. Race card is a term that is used when someone brings up the issue of race when it doesn't belong. Hyde did exactly that, so he gets the 'race card' term leveled at him fairly. Had he brought it up with some sort of foundation, then it wouldn't apply. Same can be said of disagreeing with our president. Just because I disagree with him on social spending policies, doesn't mean that I have a problem with his race. When someone spouts off that people who disagree with the president are racists, they are using the 'race card'. Your effectively holding up a card that says no further real discussion can take place here because I have unfairly attributed racism to this discussion. As previously said, anyone disagreeing is now demonized as a racist and all serious discussion is now off the table. Sadly those who cry wolf know exactly what they are doing, shutting down good dialogue and demonizing the opposition. Hence the term 'race card'.

I agree with what you that it is unfair for you to be demonized as a racist for disagreeing with Obama, and I don't think race should be used as an obstacle for having real discussions about his policies.

I guess we just disagree with the vocabulary of it. I see that term "race card" being used a lot by people who do not have to suffer through any real racism, and thus don't really understand it or see its presence. I shouldn't just attribute that to you, so I apologize for that. I just don't like the way that term stigmatizes race as a topic of conversation in our society, necause in some instances it's ok and even necessary to talk about it.

Quote:

You've made no point. You're REEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAACHING. You're apparently one of these crusaders marching to the beat of anything anyone labels as racist.

I wonder what the connection is with crack users to prostitution???? Hmmmmm I wonder how far fetched it would be that someone who used crack, could ever have prostituted themselves? I wonder if a child growing up around a person like that could ever be mentally "afllicted"?? Hmmmmm

Nope, that would be racist to consider.

If you would have actually read my posts rather than just jump on the bandwagon you would realize I'm not defending Hyde or blasting Ireland, so I don't automatically believe this or other issues are about race.I'm arguing against the "race card" premise that often carries with it naive and incorrect perceptions of race in America, primarily that we live in a society where race doesn't play a role. Also the fact that the "race card" label is too readily applied to anything as soon as the word race comes up. If you want to argue with me about that then fine, but don't put words in my mouth. And don't reduce me to your bumbling caricature of who you think Al Sharpton is.

_________________

Last edited by fonzy on Thu Apr 29, 2010 10:51 am, edited 1 time in total.

If you would have actually read my posts rather than just jump on the bandwagon you would realize I'm not defending Hyde or blasting Ireland, so I don't automatically believe this or other issues are about race.I'm arguing against the "race card" premise that often carries with it naive and incorrect perceptions of race in America, primarily that we live in a society where race doesn't play a role. Also the fact that the "race card" label is too readily applied to anything as soon as the word race comes up. If you want you argue with me about that then fine, but don't put words in my mouth. And don't reduce me to your bumbling caricature of who you think Al Sharpton is.

I don't need to reduce anything about you, you're more than capable of doing that on your own as witnessed by everything I've read of yours in this thread. We weren't talking about "all the other times" that the race card is brought up. We're specifically talking about this one comment Jeff Ireland made. Stick to the topic. It either was or it wasn't. If you'd like to remind us all about the legions of secret Nazi's walking around America, go start a thread in one of the other non-football related forums.

If you would have actually read my posts rather than just jump on the bandwagon you would realize I'm not defending Hyde or blasting Ireland, so I don't automatically believe this or other issues are about race.I'm arguing against the "race card" premise that often carries with it naive and incorrect perceptions of race in America, primarily that we live in a society where race doesn't play a role. Also the fact that the "race card" label is too readily applied to anything as soon as the word race comes up. If you want you argue with me about that then fine, but don't put words in my mouth. And don't reduce me to your bumbling caricature of who you think Al Sharpton is.

I don't need to reduce anything about you, you're more than capable of doing that on your own as witnessed by everything I've read of yours in this thread. We weren't talking about "all the other times" that the race card is brought up. We're specifically talking about this one comment Jeff Ireland made. Stick to the topic. It either was or it wasn't. If you'd like to remind us all about the legions of secret Nazi's walking around America, go start a thread in one of the other non-football related forums.

Nazis? Huh? Again, you're making generalizations about my perspective as a whole based on the fact that I'm bringing up this issue of the race card as a troublesome term. In other words, you are making assumptions about me and characterizing me as one of those "crazy liberals", hell bent on making everything about race. Do you really not see how that illustrates my point? Please just think about it for a second.

Also, I never talked about any other issues. You seem to have real issues with reading comprehension.

What I said was that by using the term race card on everything, you lump all issues dealing with race into this one, supposedly irrelevant category. That's all, no one is talking about Nazis or anything extreme like that, despite how bad you want to make it seem that way.

Nazis? Huh? Again, you're making generalizations about my perspective as a whole based on the fact that I'm bringing up this issue of the race card as a troublesome term. In other words, you are making assumptions about me and characterizing me as one of those "crazy liberals", hell bent on making everything about race. Do you really not see how that illustrates my point? Please just think about it for a second.

Also, I never talked about any other issues. You seem to have real issues with reading comprehension.

What I said was that by using the term race card on everything, you lump all issues dealing with race into this one, supposedly irrelevant category. That's all, no one is talking about Nazis or anything extreme like that, despite how bad you want to make it seem that way.

Who said anything about "crazy liberals"? LOL ....gee "generalizing" can be fun!

Since you missed it, the "race card" is a euphemism for dealing with racial issues. You keep mentioning how it's used on "everything" and forcing this online disseration on us. It has been appropriately applied in this topic, as we were discussing the racial motives (or lackthereof) with one Jeff Ireland and his comment.

The only stereotypical prejudice that happened here is when Hyde played the race card. Unless he knows something about Ireland that he is not sharing (and if does know something then he shoud share it) he should not have introduced race into the conversation.

The reason that the term "race card" has gained use is that people too often introduce race into a conversation in which it does not belong. I don't see how using it correctly in any way diminishes the legitimate topic of race in conversations in which it belongs.

The only stereotypical prejudice that happened here is when Hyde played the race card. Unless he knows something about Ireland that he is not sharing (and if does know something then he shoud share it) he should not have introduced race into the conversation.

Rock is right here fonzy. As I started off by saying (and perhaps soap box was too offensive) you came into this conversation railling about the term 'race card' even though its use was appropriate in this context. If the term is brought up unfairly in another thread, your comments would be much more appropriate there. Really what you have done is create an argument where none was needed. You and others have agreed that Hyde's use of racism as a motivating factor here is incorrect and off base. Someone used a term that you are not comfortable with and so you have subjected us to a 'lesson' on why 'race card' is a term often misused, even though the context for its use here was appropriate. That's what you call taking the discussion 'off topic'.

Nazis? Huh? Again, you're making generalizations about my perspective as a whole based on the fact that I'm bringing up this issue of the race card as a troublesome term. In other words, you are making assumptions about me and characterizing me as one of those "crazy liberals", hell bent on making everything about race. Do you really not see how that illustrates my point? Please just think about it for a second.

Also, I never talked about any other issues. You seem to have real issues with reading comprehension.

What I said was that by using the term race card on everything, you lump all issues dealing with race into this one, supposedly irrelevant category. That's all, no one is talking about Nazis or anything extreme like that, despite how bad you want to make it seem that way.

Who said anything about "crazy liberals"? LOL ....gee "generalizing" can be fun!

Since you missed it, the "race card" is a euphemism for dealing with racial issues. You keep mentioning how it's used on "everything" and forcing this online disseration on us. It has been appropriately applied in this topic, as we were discussing the racial motives (or lackthereof) with one Jeff Ireland and his comment.

Please, don't act like your little anecdote about Nazis wasn't an attempt to generalize what I was saying. And it may be the case that we have different experiences with the term, but you certainly are belittling what I'm saying while I am attempting to address everyone's comments.

You say that I'm talking about other issues, but look at the two threads containing this topic carefully. What you'll see is a number of posts that immediately relate Hyde's article to the idea that the 'race card' is over-used as a cop out and that our country is suffering from it. These posters made it about the 'race card' in general and that's why I responded to it the way I did, by stating that the term is inappropriately used as a way to not deal with the challenging issue.

Your way of belittling my comments by associating them with Al Sharpton certainly illustrates how these issues can be quickly trivialized and stereotyped according to certain preconceptions we have about people using the 'race card'. You have a negative bias toward people "pulling the race card" and you associate that with Sharpton, and thus you lump me with that group.

Quote:

Rock is right here fonzy. As I started off by saying (and perhaps soap box was too offensive) you came into this conversation railling about the term 'race card' even though its use was appropriate in this context. If the term is brought up unfairly in another thread, your comments would be much more appropriate there. Really what you have done is create an argument where none was needed. You and others have agreed that Hyde's use of racism as a motivating factor here is incorrect and off base. Someone used a term that you are not comfortable with and so you have subjected us to a 'lesson' on why 'race card' is a term often misused, even though the context for its use here was appropriate. That's what you call taking the discussion 'off topic'

I can certainly see what you mean by taking the conversation off topic. But I feel it was already off topic when some of the first few posts attributed Hyde's article to what they believe is a much larger problem of the race card being pulled too often. So we never started out by talking about Hyde specifically, the general race card conversation was injected into this before I joined in. I wasn't trying to give lessons, I just reacted with one post that got a lot of heated commentary so I took the time to reply thoroughly, I'm not trying to make it seem like I'm preaching to anybody despite how it may look.

I can certainly see what you mean by taking the conversation off topic. But I feel it was already off topic when some of the first few posts attributed Hyde's article to what they believe is a much larger problem of the race card being pulled too often. So we never started out by talking about Hyde specifically, the general race card conversation was injected into this before I joined in. I wasn't trying to give lessons, I just reacted with one post that got a lot of heated commentary so I took the time to reply thoroughly, I'm not trying to make it seem like I'm preaching to anybody despite how it may look.

It sure sounds as if you are sermonizing here and I think for the most part the comments in this thread about the 'race card' were directed at Hyde's comment, not an overall view of racism topics. Certainly coming into a conversation like that and sermonizing on the dangers of using that term is steering the topic much further off course than it needed to be. As proof, look at where the conversation is now, we are talking about your views on the term 'race card'. I rest my case.

I can certainly see what you mean by taking the conversation off topic. But I feel it was already off topic when some of the first few posts attributed Hyde's article to what they believe is a much larger problem of the race card being pulled too often. So we never started out by talking about Hyde specifically, the general race card conversation was injected into this before I joined in. I wasn't trying to give lessons, I just reacted with one post that got a lot of heated commentary so I took the time to reply thoroughly, I'm not trying to make it seem like I'm preaching to anybody despite how it may look.

It sure sounds as if you are sermonizing here and I think for the most part the comments in this thread about the 'race card' were directed at Hyde's comment, not an overall view of racism topics. Certainly coming into a conversation like that and sermonizing on the dangers of using that term is steering the topic much further off course than it needed to be. As proof, look at where the conversation is now, we are talking about your views on the term 'race card'. I rest my case.

I see what you mean, but if you look at the first two responses to this thread along with some of the posts on the other thread, they became about the underlying issue of the race card and not so much about Hyde. Those two posts made generalizations about the media and our country's use of the race card, so I responded to it. What is taking the conversation off course is that I'm the only one disagreeing with everyone.

It's mostly comments like this that I was responding to (and not to pick on the poster, I know they clarified their comments later on):

Quote:

I agree 100% Rich. It's ridiculous that race can be a cop out for any black man, but it's completely ignored as a white man. If a black kicker/qb coming into the league were asked this question it would make CNN's headlines.

The conversation certainly hasn't been all about Hyde. And If people think that I am sermonizing it's only because comments like this will always inspire a lot of conversation, not because I think I'm smarter than anyone.

Please, don't act like your little anecdote about Nazis wasn't an attempt to generalize what I was saying. And it may be the case that we have different experiences with the term, but you certainly are belittling what I'm saying while I am attempting to address everyone's comments.

You say that I'm talking about other issues, but look at the two threads containing this topic carefully. What you'll see is a number of posts that immediately relate Hyde's article to the idea that the 'race card' is over-used as a cop out and that our country is suffering from it. These posters made it about the 'race card' in general and that's why I responded to it the way I did, by stating that the term is inappropriately used as a way to not deal with the challenging issue.

Your way of belittling my comments by associating them with Al Sharpton certainly illustrates how these issues can be quickly trivialized and stereotyped according to certain preconceptions we have about people using the 'race card'. You have a negative bias toward people "pulling the race card" and you associate that with Sharpton, and thus you lump me with that group.

............ Negative bias? Nah, more like ZERO tolerance for posters who can't stick to the topic and fixate on off-tangent comments....... then begin to lecture us on how something like the "race card" is inappropriately used giving us no clear examples of why other than it's a "challenging" issue. The "race card" has most definitely been used appropriately in this thread.